You mght not but at least 99% of Americans are oblivious to what goes on overseas.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
You mght not but at least 99% of Americans are oblivious to what goes on overseas.
Not that I buy the notion that Dubya is stupid. But he certainly managed to come across as a total moron overseas.
And isn't there an important difference between the PR gaffes f Bush and Romney, in that those of the former mainly involved him mangling the English language and the latter embarrassing in areas of policy or judgement. People disagree with and dislike Romney for his beliefs and manner, yet idiocy is not so much expected i'd have thought.
There was that one about the safety net right early on in the race to become nominee, so it is the norm as opposed to a random event.
There was that one about the safety net right early on in the race to become nominee, so it is the norm as opposed to a random event.
TBH if Romney came out and totally insulted foreigners it would probably appeal to more US voters than it would alienate.
except this is all over the news here..and his surrogates are having to defend him....
by itself it will not change anything...expect it plays into the narrative that this guys knows nothing about what it takes to be a president.
Not that I buy the notion that Dubya is stupid. But he certainly managed to come across as a total moron overseas.
Bush was dumb....but this guy looks dumber...
perception.
Don't forget his fundraising events with the LIBOR people. Too bad Bob Diamond had to back out from co-hosting the event.
One thing Romney doesn't look is dumb. He just likes like a mega-rich amoral prick.
Agreed
Sorry, I meant
when he does not open his mouth..agree.
Or one of those reptilian aliens from V.
Been that way for at least twenty years.
Obama is far from being a poor candidate. He has found himself in a very difficult time.
Romneyshambles 
That's a stereotype based on his silly misstatements (strategery etc). He's actually far better than the most recent crop of GOP candidates.
Which is a scary thought. I don't think it's necessarily a stereotype of Bush either. Academically he was always a very mediocre student, was an alcoholic daddy's boy for years, a failure at business despite all his connections, and many around him have always commented on his "lack" of curiosity. He seemed to be easily manipulated by those around him as well and you can't deny, after eights years of his rule, the economy and the morale of the US was in shambles. It could be easily argued that he's a fecking idiot.
Those of you who keep saying this wont matter and that wont matter (mjs, pletch, etc...) are making out that Americans as a whole are pretty much imbeciles, ignorant and superficial. Now that may even be the case but I like to think it's not like that. Yes we see those types on TV and they do tend to stand out but I tend not to generalise and going by the Americans I have met and spoken to (not that it means much) they aren't all like this.
Time will tell, but if Americans are as bad as you make out then that's incredibly embarrassing... and damaging.
Time will tell, but if Americans are as bad as you make out then that's incredibly embarrassing... and damaging.
Even if he was a mediocre student, it was at the best Univesities in the world, so that can't be held against him. He's a far more pragmatic individual than most perceive him to be (as were his Dad and brother). His main fault was surrounding himself with neo cons and trusting them to deliver wise policy decisions during a seminal period in US history. That backfired big time.
I'm really not. (Though most electorates probably fit that description.)
I'm saying there's a very small percentage of the electorate that's still being fought over, and that they care primarily about the economy.
The research suggests that US Presidential elections are largely referendums on the incumbent's - or the incumbent party's - economic performance. There's not even much evidence that, beyond a certain credibility threshold, the challenger's personality/image even makes much difference. And there's certainly no evidence that gaffes and such have any significant effect.
This is an extremely one sided view of the candidates and election. I stopped posting on a general board of a US site because apart from me and a couple of posters the rest just bashed Obama. Romney has some merits and his advert are on par with Obama's. I will vote democrat but I can see why a lot of people will be tempted to go with Romney. The economy is stagnating and Obamacare is an abortion.
Those two issues are the most important for most voters.
Those two issues are the most important for most voters.
At this point, the economy won't sway the remaining independents. What will sway them are: tv ads, who Romney chooses as his VP, and party conventions, and the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates. Historically, going into the summer, most presidential elections have been influenced by the aforementioned, rather than macro-economic issues.
Good responses, so you (pletch) are saying that they will be voting primarily on the economy? wasn't that clear before, especially in mjs case...
It sounded more like, they basically pick who they don't want, and then vote for the other guy!
It sounded more like, they basically pick who they don't want, and then vote for the other guy!
Surrounding himself and trusting them to delivery wise policy because . . . fill in the blank. I think Republicans, much like the case with Reagan, knew very well the level of intelligence of these men and how easily they could be manipulated and how much they could do behind their backs.
I think Bush, at best, is of a very average intelligence, but when your puppet masters have put you on the world stage as president of the US, it's bound to be a debacle for this sort of average man, as we have seen with the most tragic results.
Politicians routinely surround themselves with an group of advisors who they think will make the best decisions. Bush made the wrong choice of selecting Cheney as his VP. Cheney, in turn, used his leverage to get more neo-conservatives into the administration - Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Libby etc, soon followed. Bush's actual preferences were more pragmatic - Don Evans as Commerce Secretary, Tom Ridge as Homeland Security, Colin Powell and Condy Rice etc. As Republicans go, these were more moderate than the neo-cons, but unfortunately they were quickly outflanked by Cheney's increasing influence. Bush definitely deserves the blame for that, but most of the foreign policy mistakes need to be placed on Cheney's gang, rather than what Bush would've done had he picked a less aggressive VP.
A VP is as powerful as the President allows him to be. You think Obama allows Biden to have the main say in his appointments? Bush allowed Cheney to bring those in, ergo they were his choice too.
The power dynamics are personality driven. Bush relied heavily on Cheney's expert/insider Washington experience to set up the administration. Obama, despite being very young, had already been in DC and knew most of the personalities, which yielded a much more collaborative cabinet recruiting process.
He is an empty shell...which is why he scares me more.
Just because he has all this money he thinks he is 'entitled' to be president and finds this black person in his way annoying.
He therefore will accept any view that solidifies his power.
as for him and the other candidates....well he does not seem as' out there' as the others if that is what you mean.
FFS will drop the racial shit with every bloody subject. Its tedious and boring.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/
In the debate over new laws meant to curb voter fraud in places like Florida, Democrats always charge that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote of liberal voting blocs like blacks and young people, while Republicans just laugh at such ludicrous and offensive accusations. That is, every Republican except for Florida’s former Republican Party chairman Jim Greer, who, scorned by his party and in deep legal trouble, blew the lid off his what he claims was a systemic effort to suppress the black vote. In a 630-page deposition recorded over two days in late May, Greer, who is on trial for corruption charges, unloaded a litany of charges against the “whack-a-do, right-wing crazies” in his party, including the effort to suppress the black vote . . .
I was talking about W.
You're consistently racially biased, its embarrassing. Most people don't care about the race of the candidates, and I am pretty sure probably includes Romney.
*noticed the word probably underlined. that is because I don't know what he is thinking, and neither the feck do you.
Maybe, but Romney isn't afraid to exploit that racism in others in order to win their support. That's just as bad as being a racist IMO.
your pulling stuff out of the arse is what is embarrassing...
that 99% poll you conducted with yourself above...is an example.
I take Romney at his word....unless you claim to know what he is thinking...
'unamerican' 'foreign'
'does not understand our anglo-saxon heritage'
race is the elephant in the room that even the media find uncomfortable to address.
' the blacks are all on welfare'
'the hispanics want to take your job'
while certainly all conservatives are not racist. The current republican party is racist...thus them feeling totally comfortable with using such derogatory terms.
in fact it is worse mate.
I am not uncomfortable talking about race. It is not all the difference between the parties.
A huge part is culture. there is a great divide....
The moment a policy comes from a democrat, even if the same policy had been expounded by a republican...it becomes taboo.
Taking stuff a little out of context there. It was an historical event, and not the norm.
BTW - my post said MOST, which would still apply in 2008. There was a small percentage of people that voted for Obama mainly because he was black and probably quite a few that voted the other way for the same reason.
BTW - my post said MOST, which would still apply in 2008. There was a small percentage of people that voted for Obama mainly because he was black and probably quite a few that voted the other way for the same reason.
A small percentage, responsible for a ridiculous amount?
Did you ever have any evidence for that though or was it just your opinion? From the stats I looked at, voting patterns were quite normal.
- Status